[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 79 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


>Pentax in kino edition

Old: >>3793113

>All discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread.
>Redirect other gear-related threads to this thread.
>Remember to be polite.
>This is the thread in which you can be a gearfag.
>>
How does one achieve the 80s photoshoot aesthetic?
Spare me the body recommendations, I'm after creating the scene in front of the camera rather than in the camera. Naturally I won't be using Fuji but that's obvious.
I assume any decent portrait lens will do, probably in the 85-135mm range. Should be able to open up nice and easy. Then maybe some diffusion filter.
But the fun part comes with the lighting and backgrounds. Does anyone here know what sort of lighting setups was popular back in the day?
>>
File: 1710603-bigthumbnail.jpg (94 KB, 450x354)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>3796610
>>
File: ONJ-legwarmers.jpg (89 KB, 580x804)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
>>3796611
by the way, I'm using shots with leg warmers just because it was the easiest way to find pictures representative of the aesthetic

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width580
Image Height804
>>
File: B_DXuprU0AAViCv.jpg (49 KB, 555x862)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>3796612
I'm assuming pic related was rather spartan on speedlights, the lighting isn't the softest out there
>>
>>3796613
Another variation of >>3796612, I'm assuming it was transparent and edited over different backgrounds.
>>
>>3796593
More like Pentax is kino amirite OP?
>>
>>3796610
Why not Fuji?
>>
>>3796619
>Spare me the body recommendations
That aside, because I like my pictures to look good, specially the colors and textures.
>>
>>3796610
do as much coke as possible
>>
>>3796625
kek I doubt that it will make me achieve the look but I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it at least
>>
File: onj.jpg (35 KB, 480x636)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>3796612
time flies man, but I swear the 80s was just 20 yrs ago
>>
I has a gear question:
What's the cheapest camera that has:
>interchangeable lenses
>raw files
>at least 1/2.3" sensor
>at least 16 megapickles
>viewfinder or flash mount I can stick a viewfinder on
>>
You guys like my new ink?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width640
Image Height511
>>
>>3796646
D3200?
I mean if you want a tiny sensor, some of the chink action cams are 16mp I think and can do raw. You just pop off the front plastic cover and cut the glue around the lens, it’s a 12mm threaded screw mount which you can get various lenses for or even make an adapter (and glue a small uv/Ir cut filter In)
>>
Is this what Leica is all about nowadays?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width444
Image Height640
>>
File: IMG_2048-1.jpg (549 KB, 538x1000)
549 KB
549 KB JPG
Looking to invest in a camera system
>macro
>nature/wildlife
>maybe some sports and landscape but mostly the first two
Want something with great IQ, and great lenses. I don't want to have a huge lens selection, but I want the lenses I have to be fantastic
>28mm
>50-100mm macro
>300+ mm tele
maybe an all-around zoom for travel but that should do it
Weather sealing preferred
DSLR or mirrorless is fine, but I've only ever shot DSLR (pentax k3)
Think it's time to jump off Pentax given their new K3-iii is going to cost "upper 200,000 yen" range
Price isn't a factor, but I'm not going to drop 3 grand for just a body.
Haven't shopped around for camera gear in years so not really sure what's out there or what's around the corner.
What are my best options/what should I start looking at to begin my search?
Is fuji a meme if I won't be doing street stuff? Is full frame still a meme?
Pic related is my K3 I've had forever but I've had some issues with the mirror lockup and I cracked the plastic that covers the top info lcd display
Help me buy a new camera /p/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3796675
Leica has been a "lifestyle brand"/fashion brand for decades. They don't make competitive products, they make products that have no competition because people buy them as status symbols.
>>
>>3796677
Canon 32MP is your friend. I'd get the 90D because I love DSLRs but if you're of the mirrorless persuasion the M6 II is an option too. Why are you selling your K3?
>>
When is x-pro4 coming?
Should I buy xt-4 or x-pro3 or wait for x-pro4?
>>
>>3796682
>Should I buy xt-4 or x-pro3 or wait for x-pro4?
buy used x-pro2
use saved money for glass or even better for travelling and/or teaching yourself photography.
>>
>>3796682
Get an X-T3 or 4. Xpro has a shit viewfinder.
>>
File: 71H9XbRZmlL._AC_SL1000_.jpg (92 KB, 1000x812)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
I'm looking to buy a second hand Canon. Which models are worth it?

Also I have a OnePlus 5. People can't shut up about "you shouldn't buy a DSLR if you have a smartphone". How much about that is true?

FAQ:
Second hand cuz I'm broke atm and I'm still learning at intermediary level
>>
Is this lens any good? I’m looking for a 28mm but getting overwhelmed by the amount of options I have for a Nikon lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width678
Image Height652
>>
>>3796677
Olympus E-M1 Mk III

>Macro
There are a variety of official first party and third party lenses. Micro Four Thirds has a slight disadvantage because at 1:1, the sensor being smaller means that you won't be able to fit a larger object in frame. That said, with the crop factor, the likes of the 60mm f/2.8 will have an equivalent focal length of 120mm. The Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 also exists. If you desire, the Venus Optics Laowa 100mm f/2.8 also exists and can give you 2:1 macro. It is MF only though.

>Nature/Wildlife
MFT is almost unrivaled in this area, particularly since the cameras and lenses are so much lighter, plus the E-M1 is weather sealed. The crop factor also means you need a much smaller lens to compete with an equivalent FF camera. The common go-to telephoto zoom lens is the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro. It is weather sealed and is compatible with a 1.4x teleconverter that Olympus make if you want to boost reach.
The other options include a Panasonic Leica 200mm f/2.8 (which comes with a 1.4x tc in the box), but is seen more for its use in sports photography and the Olympus 300mm f/4, which is compatible with 1.4x, 1.6x and 2x tc.
The E-M1 has phase dectection which is used in hybrid with contrast AF meaning you don't get banding like on a DSLR.
All this plus IBIS that's basically unrivaled in capabilities and "Sync IS" with certain IS fitted Olympus lenses. Oh, and "Pro Capture", which takes up to 60 frames prior to shutter release and 60 after, allowing you to capture animals in motion.

>Landscape
MFT's "failing" in having only 20mp sensors means that some people prefer a Sony FF for this. However, Olympus have a "high res" mode, which uses the IBIS to take multiple exposures and stiches it together. This allows for an effective 40mp handheld, and 50mp when tripod mounted.
Plus, Olympus make the 17mm f/1.8 prime, that's basically loved by everyone who uses it. Great for landscapes, travel and street photography.
>>
x100v or used x100f?
>>
>MFT unrivalled for wildlife
>lolympus 40-150mm
Absolute fucking kek
That lens is $1350 USD and gets fucking shredded by a Canon 70-300mm that’s $550 USD.
>>
I'm looking to adapt some vintage lenses to a modern mirrorless body. Is it worthwhile to spring for the Metabones adapters that control aperture electronically, or is just as good to use the DOF preview button on the lens? I'm looking for opinions from people who have experience
>>
>>3796747
>Canon 70-300mm
>EF-Mount
>Only for DSLRs
>f/4 at widest, drops to f/5.6 when zoomed in

Also, the Canon £1329 in the UK
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-l-is-usm-lens-1522208/
The Olympus is £1099 in the UK
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/olympus-40-150mm-f28-pro-mzuiko-digital-lens-1560264/

idk where the fuck you're pulling $550 USD from, but if it's the second hand market, then you can find Olympus lenses for cheaper yet

you really are fool frame
>>
I have an RB with a 90mm 3.8 and am trying 2 convince myself this system is as good as I will ever need and I will never require another 6x7 camera. Any focal-length/max-aperture ratio above ~25 should give pretty good subject isolation (it corresponds to a 35mm 1.4, 50mm f2, 85mm 3.2). With that:


Hasselblad
> 80mm f/2.8 ~29
> Mechanical, 6x6

RB
> 90mm f/3.5 ~26, 127mm f/3.5 ~36
> Mechanical, 6x7

Pentax 67
> 105mm/2.4 ~43
> Electronic, 6x7

RZ
> 110mm/2.8 ~39.
> Electronic, 6x7

Bronica GS1
> 100mm f/3.5 ~ 29
> Electronic, 6x7

Bronica ETR
> 75mm f/2.8 ~ 27
> Electronic, 6x6
>>
Best edc/walkaround camera?
Needs to at least fit in the pocket of a pea coat
If fixed lens, should be around 24-35 mm FF equivalent
>>
>>3796749
>Is it worthwhile to spring for the Metabones adapters that control aperture electronically, or is just as good to use the DOF preview button on the lens?
I don't know of any "vintage" lenses with auto aperture. Unless you mean adapting EF mount lenses.
Metabones is pretty expensive - I'd recommend Urth instead, as it's cheaper (also eco credibility). Metabones is good for one thing though, speedboosters, but the one I'd be interested in has been long discontinued.
DOF preview typically moves the aperture to the setting you have set in-camera. If you're using an older lens, it will usually have a manual aperture, which will always show DOF when set out of the widest setting.
>>
>>3796677
>great IQ and great lenses
Canon (check the sensor is the 13+ stop variety not their old shit) or Nikon dSLRs, or Canon (FF only) or Sony for mirrorless.

Others have great IQ, but not dont have the lens support, or other issues. MFT is low IQ and overpriced for what you get.

>28mm
If you sure you don’t want wider
Sony 28mm f/2
Others to consider might be
Samyang 18mm f/2.8
Canon RF 15-35mm
Canon RF 24-105mm (the cheap budget one)
Sigma 14-24mm DN (particularly excellent)
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8


>Macro
I would pick one of the Laowa lenses, they are 2:1 macro lenses, very sharp. They also have a ridiculous 14mm 1:1 macro lens that can show a subject in context with its background

>300mm+
Sigma 100-400mm DN (no TC support - don’t bother with L mount) - excellent all round purpose, value, weight and performance
Sony 100-400mm GM ($$$)
Sony 200-600mm
Canon 100-500mm RF
Canon 600mm f/11 RF
Canon 800mm f/11 RF
Sigma 60-600mm OS *dSLR or needs adapted for mirrorless, heavy, same price as Sony 200-600mm

>all round zoom for travel
Usually 24-105mm, and then 100-400mm for second lens if taking a second lens.
>>
>>3796755
I probably wasn't clear about the aperture thing: Metabones claims to operate the aperture via their adapter, without needing to use DOF preview on the lens. I'm assuming it's an electric singal that moves an arm in the adapter which in turn controls the aperture in the lens. The lens itself is fully manual and this is how the native camera body would operate the aperture control, but it's missing from most adapters, being simple mount plates on either end of a tube with no moving bits inside.
I suppose it's not necessary for me to get an adapter that can actuate the aperture since I can use the DOF preview button on the lens, but I'm wondering how much of a pain in the ass other anons have found this to be
>>
>>3796751

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281379-REG/canon_0571c002aa_ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is.html

>5.6
Yes, so it’s 2.8 equivalent in MFT, so will provide similar noise in the same conditions, except bright conditions where min ISO can be used on both. Since it’s much sharper you can also get better results if you need to crop in.
>>
Do full frame DSLRs have larger viewfinders than APSC?
>>
>>3796761
>MFT is low IQ and overpriced for what you get.
This is Fool Frame progaganda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM

Unless you're making massive prints, which are typically viewed from a few metres away anyway, MFT (20mp models) has more than satisfactory IQ for almost all applications. Anyone who tells you otherwise is compensating for their FF purchase, because they want to boast about specs, and probably rarely take their gear off a shelf at home.
>>3796765
You are a moron.
Aperture equivalence only affects depth of field. A MFT f/2.8 is an f/2.8, even if you choose to adapt it to a larger sensor, it's still f/2.8.
At f/2.8 at 150mm on MFT, you will be letting in twice as much light as the other lens does at f/5.6 at 300mm on FF. The only difference is that both lenses will have the equivalent focal length and depth of field. MFT lets you have the DOF of a narrow aperture at much wider apertures.

Sharpness can really only be differentiated on an MTF chart - when looking at photographs, you'd barely ever be able to tell the difference unless you zoomed right into the edges of images, which no one ever does. Plus, mirrorless cameras are inherrantly sharper than DSLRs (the D stands for Dinosaur). EF lenses are almost always outperformed by RF lenses. The only reason people are still sticking with DSLRs is because they've probably sank loads of cash into the system, and now their lens collection is worth a fraction of what it was worth new, and the appeal of starting new on mirrorless doesn't appeal to them (even though there are EF-RF adapters, though this might be more a cope as they can probably see the sharpness difference between an EF adapted to RF, and a native RF lens).
>>
>>3796777

Yes. You should also apply the crop factor to compare viewfinder magnification. An aps-c dslr like the Nikon D7500 has 0.94× viewfinder magnification. Which would be the same as 0.62x viewfinder magnification on a full frame dslr. A full frame dslr like the Nikon D6 had 0.72× viewfinder magnification. The Canon EOS-1D X Mark III has 0.76x viewfinder magnification. So full frame dslrs usually have a larger viewfinder.
>>
>>3796796
Excellent. As someone who has just ordered a FF DSLR this is great news.
>>
>>3796789
You are a moron. MFT is 2 stops worse in noise than FF. You will get the same results at f/5.6, regardless of your fake argument. You can simply use 2 stops higher ISO without penalty on FF. The Canon lens is close to a third of the price, and is f/2-f/2.8 equivalent zoom. Starts wider, and is sharper. That allows you more cropping room and retaining better IQ, which is important for wildlife. Plus it’s cheaper.

And the reason FF has 2 stops better signal to noise ratio is because it has 2 stops more signal under the same conditions, and signal is simply light. f/5.6 on FF and f/2.8 on MFT provide the same amount of light, which is why you get a very similar signal to noise ratio.

Additionally the reason doesn’t matter to the reality - that is FF is 2 stops better than MFT, allowing you to use a lens 2 stops “slower” for similar results.

MFT is a false economy. That Canon lens is better and cheaper. And that example was picked because a f/4-5.6 kit zoom is faster than a f/2.8 “pro” zoom that costs more than double, since it starts at f/2 equivalent.

The poster asked for great IQ, that canon kit zoom lens provides better IQ than that lolympus “pro” lens.

Not only is it cheaper, but it’s simply better having APSC or FF, as there’ll be many situations where you will be using minimum ISO even with equivalent lens, you’ll have other lenses that are faster, and will quite simply end up with better IQ, like the poster wants.
>>
>>3796817
Have fun when your flappy mirror gets stuck. I can't believe /p/ anons can't understand equivalence.
>>
>>3796820
f/5.6 and f/2.8 on FF and MFT are equivalent. They provide the same amount of light. If you had a 0.5x speedbooster and put it on a f/5.6 FF lens, it would concentrate the image circle down to half its diameter, and it’d be f/2.8. It would still be putting out the exact same amount of light (minus tiny losses from the speedbooster) It would not be putting out 2 stops more light, the speedbooster would simply be allowing a MFT camera to collect as much light from that lens as a FF sensor does. Can’t believe there are Anons who project not understanding equivalency on /p/.

Regardless if you don’t understand it or not, there is no question that FF is 2 stops better, therefore there is no penalty in using f/5.6 on FF vs f/2.8 on FF. The Canon lens is better and cheaper. The Canon lens is simply an arbitrary example, there are numerous examples, it doesn’t have to be specifically that lens.
>>
>>3796610
Shoot film, it's what they used back then.
>>
>>3796614
>>3796613
>>3796612
>>3796611
Most of your pics are 35-50mm
>>
>>3796825
*No penalty in using f/5.6 on FF Vs f/2.8 on MFT
>>
What sensor has the best IQ and noise performance I can get for 2k or less?
>>
>>3796834
Do you need a lens in that budget or not?
>>
>>3796838
Body only
>>
>>3796834

Nikon D810.
>>
>>3796834
No lens and if second hand counts then
D810
D800E
A7rIII

At the same print size or screen viewing size they do just as well at noise as lower mp bodies, plus provide additional res when you want it, and have the same high DR at low iso.

A7iii
Pentax K-1
A7c

Didn’t include the Rp because it has much lower DR.
>>
>>3796843
Doesn’t that have the same sensor as Pentax K1?
>>
>>3796847

They could be the same sensor. Probably sourced from Sony.
>>
>>3796850
Everyone sources their sensors from Sony these days, no matter what sensor size or brand you're using. Even Fuji X-Trans is just a Sony sensor with a different colour filter on them.
I think it's just Foveon that's non-Sony, though I'm not sure.
>>
Been shopping around a while now.
Some of what Pentax offers seems decent value, if a bit dated compared to competition, but lens selection is not as great.
Why buy Pentax over Canikon or Sony or Fuji?
Like the newest sensor you’d get from a Pentax is from 2016.
>>
>>3796903
Well don’t then? You don’t need to buy old Pentax gear
>>
>>3796671
It's not that I necessarily want a tiny sensor, it's just that I'm a poorfag and that's the size of my current sensor so I don't want to move backwards in that regard on my next upgrade.
>>
>>3796880
Canon makes their own sensors too.
>>
>>3796929
Get a D7100, you should be able to get one for under 300. Or a D7000, you can get it for less than 200. D5200 is a good option too, same sensor as D7100 in a more compact body with less pro features (like dual SD slots or weather sealing) but with a fully articulated screen. A major caveat is that only D7x00 cameras and above get the AF screw for D lenses. Also D7100 and D5200 get support for DX AF-P lenses. On the D5200 it's kinda limited though, only the D5300 and newer models make full use of it in the D5x00 series.
Another solid option is Canon T2i/T3i/T4i, more lens variety specially of the cheaper kinds but not as good image quality as the Nikons.
Also Pentax K-S2.
>>
Isn't there an old rule that you should underexpose on digital and overexpose on Film?
>>
>>3797043
On the contrary, you want more exposure on digital to cancel out the noise.
>>
>>3796829
>Shoot film, it's what they used back then.
I'm pretty sure shooting film with the wrong lighting will look farther off than shooting digital with the right lighting.
>>
>>3796740
>>3796740
apparently not
>https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28mm-f28-afd.htm
>>
>>3797056
Digital is way more prone to overblown highlights which can't be recovered in post.
It's something to think about during sunny days, especially in winter, when the sunlight is low.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (614 KB, 1920x1080)
614 KB
614 KB JPG
Tamron 17-70 is the one APS-C god lens to rule over them all.

1st party lens makers are now irrelevant.
>>
>>3797043
if you shoot and edit digital in RAW, then yes

>>3797056
you mean correct exposure not more
>>
>>3797098
huge as fuck, heavy as fuck, and no contrast at all
classical lab specimen with no soul at all
>>
File: untitled.png (52 KB, 1046x383)
52 KB
52 KB PNG
>>3797104
The Sony is too expensive.
The Fujifilm is fatter and heavy and expensive.
The Canon doesn't exist.
The Nikon is lost on another planet.
The Sigma is stuck in an alternate reality where only prime lenses exist.
>>
>>3797098
Come on, Dustin, work more on your photography instead of wanking over sharpness
>>
I'm happy that Olympus is saved
>Still no E-M5 mark IV leaks
>>
File: untitled.jpg (1.12 MB, 1920x1080)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB JPG
>>3797104
Jeeeesus, just look at that perfect flare control even at widest angle.

>>3797115
Dusting is actually shooting on lenses with smaller aperture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3htW66hs1Y
His prime lenses are sparetime lenses.
>>
>>3796734
>People can't shut up about "you shouldn't buy a DSLR if you have a smartphone". How much about that is true?
People who say this are retards. There is no panacea in photography, different tools for different applications. A mechanic doesn't have one adjustable wrench.
>>
>>3797109
>The Canon doesn't exist.
Canon perfected this lens more than a decade ago. They don't have to reinvent the wheel, unlike Sony and Fuji.

>b-bu-bu-but it's a dslr lens!!! no fair, that's cheating, waaaaahhhh!!
It weighs 650 grams, which is lighter than the Fuji lens. Same focal length range and aperture. Plus, it has IS, which the Fuji lens does not have.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (716 KB, 1920x1080)
716 KB
716 KB JPG
>>3797132
>17-55
>heavier than a 17-70
>lacks close focusing with creamiest possible background blur
>>
>>3797133
Wow, you're a really disgusting Tamron shill, you know that?

>you can get 6 inchers closer to the leaferinos!

If you want background blur, maybe you fucked up by choosing a small format camera. Both are f/2.8, so they have the same exposure advantage. The Tamron lens was designed over a decade later, and with mirrorless specifically in mind. Sacrifices were made to get the weight down to where it is. The Canon was designed by people who actually use their cameras and lenses for photography. No compromises were made in regard to its photographic capabilities.
>>
>>3797144
>No compromises were made in regard to its photographic capabilities.
What in the retarded fanboy nonsense is this? Compromise is the name of the game in photography in general, let alone those on an $880 consumer compact zoom lens. Even my stupidly expensive, probably-should-have-bought-cheaper-stuff pro gear and classic MF equipment had compromises made in its design.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (771 KB, 1920x1080)
771 KB
771 KB JPG
>>3797144
>Sacrifices were made
I noticed you can't point out which. Because you you want to avoid direct comparisons?
>>
>>3797152
>>3797133
>not a single review or even owner on dpreview
Says it all
>>
>>3797156
You're probably trolling, but there are some nice review on youtube that shows off really fast autofocus.

I suspect the travel distance of focus group is extremely small, since it's way faster than the other RXD lenses with the same motor.
>>
>>3797157
>review on youtube
You mean "product feature"
>>
>>3797074
Only if you don't apply enough ISO to shift the midpoint to the highlights.
>>3797102
No, I mean more. +1EV is a good start.
>>
>>3797160
>No, I mean more. +1EV is a good start
no wonder /p/ is full of garbage photos
>inb4 nophoto hurr durr
>>
>>3796610
>85-135 range

I dont think they would have used such long lenses back then. if you mean full body potraits like you have been posting. Proably mf for those studio ones you are showing. Defiently want a 50-80mm or even more open lens proably shot 2.8-3.5 with a softer lense.
>>
>>3796614
honestly? it's the hairdo's anon, no ammount of gear will bring that back
>>
>>3796796
>>3796815
Not necessarily. I had a D7000 for a while. Upgraded to a D600, and boy was I disappointed when the viewfinder was literally the same size.
>>
>>3797193
>what is ETTR
You should expose just below the point of clipping
>>
>>3796734
T3i and above for Rebels (make sure there's an i at the end of the model, don't get a shitty T3).
60D and above for double digit models.
6D and newer for full frame.
>How much about that is true?
It's only true if you don't mind having no subject separation, no focal lengths besides 28mm (equivalent), little control and poor ergonomics and AF performance. Even the queen of the sensorlet cameras, the Pentax Q, offers things a phone can't. It's barely a step above though and as far as printing goes it's not much of an improvement with its meager 12MP.
>>
>>3796741
>The E-M1 has phase dectection which is used in hybrid with contrast AF meaning you don't get banding like on a DSLR.
This is retarded.
My 5D2 has no phase detection pixels and still gets banding.
Sure, having pixels devoted to AF like some Sony cameras does cause extra banding, but it's not the sole culprit. And that Olympus does have AF pixels, maybe fewer than the Sony models but I'm not sure. Canon with their dual pixel technology are the only ones to avoid this phase detection pixels ordeal altogether but they do have banding.
>MFT is almost unrivaled in this area, particularly since the cameras and lenses are so much lighter, plus the E-M1 is weather sealed. The crop factor also means you need a much smaller lens to compete with an equivalent FF camera.
This is true. Crop factor notwithstanding, pixel pitch is what to look at.
Olympus 20.4MP cameras and Panasonic 20.3MP cameras are only surpassed in reach by Canon's APS-C 32MP cameras and the Pentax Q system. Pentax Q is really old, dead and isn't really fit to compete in image quality. MFT-sized crops from an a7RIV are as good as a 16MP MFT camera.
The MFT system has affordable glass that gives the performance the sensor requires. For Canon you could get the 70-200mm f/2.8L for the same price as the Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO, sacrificing a bit of the wide end for some extra reach with a 24 or 32MP sensor (32MP will be much better in this case). With 20MP or less, the Oly wins hands down.
>All this plus IBIS that's basically unrivaled in capabilities
That's super sweet about MFT. Panny gets awesome IBIS too. Sony can't compete because bigger sensors mean higher inertia.
>MFT's "failing" in having only 20mp sensors
The way I see it the lack of wider lenses is a bigger problem. I'd take a 5Ds or D850 over the Sony BTW.
>>3796747
He said "nearly unrivaled" and the Canon is a slower lens, light-wise. Subject isolation doesn't mean much in wildlife.
>>
>>3796755
>but the one I'd be interested in has been long discontinued.
you made me curious, what was it?
>>
>>3797317
>He said "nearly unrivaled" and the Canon is a slower lens, light-wise. Subject isolation doesn't mean much in wildlife.
>using semantics
Yeah it’s just nearly unrivalled except for a cheap kit zoom, except for Canon, except for Nikon, except for Sony, except for Pentax, except for Fuji. Except for all those, it’s unrivalled, so basically, it’s unrivalled by compact fixed lens cameras with a telezoom.p and smartphones.
>slower lens
No, it isn’t. f/5.6 collects the same amount of light on FF as f/2.8 does on APSC, nobody opposes that FF has a 2 stop advantage over MFT, so there is no penalty to using f/5.6 on FF versus f/2.8 on MFT. The Canon kit zoom lens is equivalent to a 35-150mm f/2-2.8 zoom, less than half the cost, and a lot sharper.
>>
>>3797317
>The MFT system has affordable glass that gives the performance the sensor requires. For Canon you could get the 70-200mm f/2.8L for the same price as the Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO
The Canon 70-300mm is equivalent to 35-150mm f/2-2.8 on MFT and is less than half the cost, and is sharper. The 40-150mm is not affordable, it is overpriced, and under performing.
>>
>>3797339
>No, it isn’t. f/5.6 collects the same amount of light on FF as f/2.8 does on APSC
kek
Exposure cares about intensity not how much you "collect". Take that boomer bullshit back to plebbit.
Twice the f-number means needing 4 times the ISO.
>>
>>3797355
Kek. Results don’t care about what ISO you use. There is no penalty to using 4x the ISO on FF, because the SNR is about the same as 1/4 the ISO on MFT. Almost as if FF has 4x the signal, I wonder what that could mean hmmmm.

Regardless of how you try to explain it away, f/5.6 is equivalent to f/2.8 on MFT. There is no penalty to using f/5.6 on FF, since there is no penalty to using 4x the ISO on FF vs MFT.

The Canon lens is less than half the cost, sharper than the Olympus lens. The Olympus lens is not affordable, it is overpriced and under performing.
>>
>>3797343
>The Canon 70-300mm is equivalent to 35-150mm f/2-2.8 on MFT
You're talking about subject separation not exposure. No one cares about subject separation when it comes to wildlife, keeping the ISO and shutter speed low is a lot more important. In fact, lower subject separation means less chances to fuck up the focus. I think you're mad that a sensorlet is better than whatever camera you have at something. There's no reason to be mad.
Even Ferraris suck off-road, doesn't mean they're less desirable than a 90s Yukon. But if we're talking off-road, the Ferrari isn't the best choice. This is the same. Wildlife is the one niche where the MFT cameras excel at. Take that Canon lens and put it on the Oly. Voila, you have more reach. Unless you were using a 90D or M6 II from the start, obviously. But that's state-of-the-art. And in any case, it's more reach but also more bulk. For any given physical focal length, Canon 32MP offers the best reach followed by MFT 20.4 and 20.3MP.
>>
>>3797373
FF has a 2 stop advantage in ISO over MFT, there is no penalty to using f/5.6 on FF Vs f/2.8 on MFT.

Sounds like youre mad that an inexpensive kit zoom is better than your "pro" lens and that makes it harder to shill high priced gear.

MFT cameras excel at wildlife except for anything Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax, etc has.
>>
Anons still dont understand exposure equivalency. f/5.6 on FF exposes the sensor to the same amount of light as f/2.8 does on MFT. The /same/ exposure.
>but muh 4x higher ISO
ISO800 FF is equivalent to ISO200 on MFT, and ISO is an electronic behavior, and not an optical property, it doesnt change the amount of light the sensor gets. The sensor receives roughly the same amount of light at f/5.6 on FF as f/2.8 on MFT does. End of story.

The fact that FF has a 2 stop advantage in ISO should tell you this. The only way you're getting better SNR on similar tech level sensors is with more signal, ie: the only way to do that is with more light. FF = more light at the same intensity, thus more exposure.

How much light the sensor overall is exposed to is the most important factor, pixel size is simply not while sensor size is. 12mp FF (eg A7s) and 61mp FF (A7rIV) produce very similar amounts of noise in an image.

Despite each pixel getting less light and the image having a lot more noise at 100% crops. The reason for this is the sensor overall is still getting the same amount of light and that crop is way more enlarged - you will display the image at the same size on screen or in print regardless of which camera it comes from.


If you cant understand this, you can at least still realise that FF can be used at much higher ISO than MFT can, which cancels out any issue with "slower" lenses, and makes f/5.6 in FF equivalent to f/2.8 in MFT.
>>
>>3797267
>You should expose just below the point of clipping
I guess you live where there is no light, +1EV here is everything clipped
>>
>>3796746
The v just feels different. I had an F. Better hold one to confirm.
>>
File: 61eS+O1y1aL._AC_SL1320_.jpg (54 KB, 1005x524)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>SEL55210
i can get this for around £120 used. i'm both a noob and a poorfag, is this a decent choice for the price?
>>
>>3797317
I think that Olympus might put 8k on their cameras before Panasonic does.
Granted, that Sony 47mp MFT-type sensor is probably fuck-you expensive
>>
>>3797484
That’s currently the new price here in Aus. Wht do you want it for? I don’t think there’s any other alternative lens in that price range though, and seems okay https://youtu.be/OLT3KbYZgk8
>>
>>3797484
The upgrade to that lens is the 70-350 APS-C.
The price is increased but so is the optical quality.
>>
>>3797512
>5x the price
Think that’s out of his budget
>>
>>3797512
yeah, way out of my price range.

>>3797507
it's like £200 new here. i've noticed we get fucked on lens prices in general.
i'll check out that review, thanks.
>>
>>3797514
I'm hoping Tamron will bring more low priced APS-C lenses on the long end.

It's an area where the 1st party lens makers have had monopoly for too long.
>>
>>3797507
>Wht do you want it for?
for taking pictures of birds, by the way. a friend of mine had some success with this lens which is why i'm looking at it.
i could probably stretch to £200-250 if that's enough to make a significant difference.
>>
>>3797522
I’m not sure if there’s anything else in that price bracket desu, not unless you can find like a Minolta 100-400mm for cheap and pick up an la-ea2 or la-ea4
>>
>>3797495
It depends.
I think a ~30mp sensor would be a nice middle ground to at least address the "low resolution" complaints about MFT (at least from certain people).
47mp would be something that's more suited to being implemented on a flagship camera like the E-M1X. It would certainly fulfill the genuinely professional users who would be interested in it for uses like photography for magazines, marketing and so on.

Panasonic seems to be lost - their initial plans to jump over to FF and L-Mount seem a bit... underwhelming, particularly since L-Mount has been disappointing to many prospective buyers, who are disappointed at the contrast AF, the slow AF and the fact that most of the available lenses are Sigma lenses which are effectively brought over from E-Mount.
MFT is a much more matured lens scene, and at the very least, Panasonic was getting Leica glass in their optics instead of having to compete against Leica.
Plus... The E-M10 Mk IV was the best selling camera in Japan in 2020, beating FF cameras in sales. Panasonic wasn't even in the top 10 in Japan, which might prompt them to rethink their MFT cameras for enthusiasts and their FF cameras for professionals who need the resolution and other performance.
>>
Should I buy Pentax k3-iii when released or k1-ii?
>>
>>3797526
They're very good. Panasonic has been working with Leica a lot on lenses and bodies, their L mount lenses are some of the best lenses for any system. They're just too heavy. Both lenses and bodies. I don't know what was the reasoning for bringing super heavy ff cameras as flagship.
>>
>>3797532
I had a K-3 that was completely incapable of taking sharp photos. The IBIS unit may have been defective or maybe it just couldn't meter correctly. Really soured me on the brand. The K-5IIs I had before that was better, but colors always seemed kind of flat and uninteresting. Why do you want a Pentax?
>>
>>3797563
I already have a K3 and have gotten great results but cracked the plastic cover on the top lcd info display and have had rare intermittent issues with the mirror going unhinged and want to upgrade and get better noise characteristics.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Size comparison with my Minolta X300. Getting the Nikon 50mm 1.8G tomorrow.
Pretty small camera

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1280
Image Height960
>>
I took a walk around town with the kr-5 I just bought. Just 50mm and that’s it. I fucking like it so much brehs. Can’t wait to develop
>>
File: untitled.jpg (899 KB, 1920x1080)
899 KB
899 KB JPG
Sony just release a new 35 GM lens.

Sigma's F1,2 is literally twice the weight and twice the size.
F1,4 is now the new compact...
>>
File: untitled.jpg (1.04 MB, 1920x1080)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
Beast lens confirmed.
It's sharper than the sigma when both are wide open.
It's still sharper than the sigma stopped down.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (941 KB, 1920x1080)
941 KB
941 KB JPG
Bokeh is also better than the Sigma.
Fatter blobs, more round shaped at all apertures.
Outline and textures are more clean.
>>
>>3797643

The right photo looks like if it is out of focus. The left one looks like if it has been sharpened in Lightroom. I can even see some worms.
>>
>>3797645
According to the reviewer it's a shot he has retaken multiple times to confirm in-focus.
>>
Do you people actually get excited for new lenses? You think they will make you a better photographer?
>>
>>3797665
I'm not going to buy it, but it's nice to understand which upgrade paths I have.
>>
>>3797665
>come to gear thread
>WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT GEAR
>>
>>3797665
I think it's more exciting to consider the kinds of images you could take when a new lens is announced, particularly ones that are more niche, like a super-telephoto, tilt-shift, macro, super-wide angle or a very bright prime (~f/1).
Most zooms or primes are pretty unexciting, but are more worth knowing they exist.
>>
File: 000418760016.jpg (3.04 MB, 3130x2075)
3.04 MB
3.04 MB JPG
Suggestions for decent monitors below $500?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 5.01.024 (091007)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3130
Image Height2075
>>
>>3797665
Not buying gear is peak nophoto
>>
>>3797701
Should be able to get a decent 100% DCI-P3 for that money.
>>
>>3797710
Going off google ad results to that keyword, something like Benq PD2705Q? Or is Benq brand hyped?
>>
File: sony.jpg (81 KB, 422x313)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
any guess on what lens is being used here? Some kind of sony e-mount but the hood looks like an ultra-wide adapter

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3797665
[Cont]
Who listens to music for the production? The art is in the composition.
>>
>>3797733
It's a zoom.
It has petal lens hood.
It has glossy botton materiel.

I would guess the Sigma 24-70 dg dn.
>>
File: zoom.gif (1.15 MB, 400x225)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB GIF
>>3797733
It's just the zoom mechanism sticking out of the lens. The other anon pointed out that the thing at the end is a lens hood.
>>
>>3797749
the lens hood is large for the sony/zeiss lenses but a sigma >>3797741 makes sense
>>
>>3797665
Different lenses give you different options, there isn't a single lens that does everything perfectly.
You have 3 ranges of focal lengths to cover:
>wide angle
>normal
>telephoto
Usualy you take 3 zoom lenses for that, in my case (APS-C crop) that's:
>wide angle
10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5
>normal
17-50 mm f/2.8
>telephoto
18-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 with image stabilizer
Then you also want some fast primes for low light/portrait, in my case that's:
>normal
35 mm f/2.0
>portrait/short telephoto
50 mm f/1.8

And then there are speciality lenses like:
>macro
>tilt shift
>supertele
>hypercentric
>old lenses with certain quirks (flare, bokeh, softness and so on)

So yea, new lenses are exiting as they often open up a whole new type of photography and allow me to do things I couldn't do without them.
My 18-200mm lens might be realy versatile during the day, but during the night or for portraits it's realy not that great.

But then there are also idiots obsessing about wich exact lens/body/brand is a tiny bit better.
They are better ignored, these days it's hard to buy a new interchangeable lens camera that sucks and even cheap lenses can produce good results.
>>
File: 3p7feecywwr31.jpg (101 KB, 785x731)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>3797665
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO STOP USING LENSES, YOU ONLY NEED A PEEP-HOLE BODY-CAPPERINO

YOU NEED TO SPEND LESS MONEY ON YOUR HOBBY, BE LIKE ME

THE ONE YOU HAVE WITH YOU!! THE ONE YOU HAVE WITH YOU!!
>>
>>3797771
You'll like Olympus, anon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-30
Camera SoftwareVersion 1.1
PhotographerPicasa
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution314 dpi
Vertical Resolution314 dpi
Image Created2013:03:11 11:38:40
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/13.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2424
Image Height1858
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Unique Image IDf00f49ad8107da91c2610d077841ebe2
>>
Is there any actual difference between aliexpress ND/polarising filters and the ones that are $300+ for a set?
>>
>>3797773
I like that lens, it's cute :(
>>
>>3797763
What a dumb kit lol, tons of overlap.
>>
>>3797791
>NOOOOOOO, YOU CAN'T OWN LENSES THAT OVERLAP FOCAL LENGTHS, I WON'T ALLOW IT

Seethe harder, fruitcake. His kit makes sense to me.

>17-50 mm f/2.8
Lens that's probably used the most. Useful for low light, for subject isolation, covers a normal range of focal lengths.

>10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5
Might be used for videos (if his camera has a cropped video mode). Otherwise, a specialty (but still useful) lens for architecture, real estate, (some) landscape photography or perspective distorted close-ups. Much wider range than his 17-50 zoom.

>18-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 with image stabilizer
Depending on his system and lens, these lenses tend to compromise a bit on sharpness in favor of having a broad zoom range. Great lens to take traveling because you don't always know what you will be photographing on a trip and may not have time to change lenses (or want to even bring more lenses with you).

>35 mm f/2.0
Low light normal focal length. Very useful for a lot of things. It's probably a lot smaller and lighter than his 17-50 f/2.8, so can make a good travel lens. There's the most overlap with this lens, but when you hold the camera in your hand with any given lens, you'll realize that the size aspect alone makes this essential and important.

>50 mm f/1.8
Low light and subject isolation for portraits. Most people would use it as more of a specialty lens. Again, probably has a size or weight advantage over the 17-50, but the additional stop and a half of subject isolation is also useful.

As for myself, I am down to two, but that's just because I changed systems recently. For my EOS R6, I have the RF 24-105mm f/4 and RF 50mm f/1.8. I plan to pick up the RF 70-200mm f/4 and probably a slow ultra wide angle when they come out, but 24-105 covers 99% of my photography right now. That doesn't mean I would try to deny other people from owning multiple lenses. Macros and super telephoto zooms can be really fun to use.
>>
>>3797791
The overlap is intentional.
It allows me to get away with not changing my lens all the time because suddenly my normal lens isn't wide enough or my wide angle is too short.
Not having any overlap would suck, especialy when you're stuck at the long end of your wide angle zoom wich is exactly the same as the short end of your normal/superzoom.
Usualy that's at around 18 mm, like the popular combination of EF-S 10-18 and 18-135 for canonfags.
If you need to switch between 17 and 19 mm for example, you either need crop from the wide angle or switcht between lenses.

Having your telezoom start at 18 mm might be a little extreme though, but there is a reason for that as well:
Sometimes I can't reasonably bring several lenses, and then the flexibility of the 18-200mm realy helps me out there.
Meanwhile the normal zoom is a pretty fast constant aperture zoom lens, wich is helping a lot in bad light conditions, and at 50 mm f/2.8 you can reasonably do portraits and get some background seperation.
>>
>>3797807
>f you need to switch between 17 and 19 mm for example, you either need crop from the wide angle or switcht between lenses.
or you know: take a step forward or backward
>>
>>3797800
You are correct with most points, the 35 mm f/2.0 prime has a substantial weight and size advantage over the insanely versatile 17-50 mm f/2.8 and it is sharper as well.
However the 10-24 mm often is usefull in tight, enclosed spaces.
Usualy I have either the 17-50 or 18-200 mounted when my camera is in my bag for a reason, and that is their versatility.
The 17-50 is fast and covers most usual focal lengths, the 18-200 covers everything but superwide and high super tele while having image stabilisation to cope with it's small aperture.

The versatility of a fast normal zoom can not be understated.
>>
>>3797810
That's not allways an option and sometimes you need to make quick and drastic changes.
With my typical large loadout it takes some time to get a lens out of the backpack, dismount one, mount the next and store one in the backpack.
Meanwhile my smallest loadout can be just one lens, either the 17-50 mm f/2.8 or the 18-200 mm.
>>
>>3797800
>seethe harder fruitcake
Cry more Fuji worm, Ken is right about overlap and "film simulations".
>Might be used for videos
>variable aperture
>useful for video
Kek
>compromise a bit
>a bit
Stopped reading there. Shame about the worms, should have bought a proper camera like a Canon or Nikon instead of your larper trash.

>>3797807
>17-19mm
This is so dishonest lol, literally 1.1x zoom. Focus breathing probably changes the focal length more than that.
>>3797810
This
>>3797812
Git gud gearfag
>>
Hey nerds, I need a new scanner to digitize Polaroids because the one I have right now is coloring all my scans purple.
Any recommendations?
>>
>>3797678
>>come to gear thread
>>WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT GEAR

You know, my idea what gear thread would be was some gear questions and answers, showing new techniques using gear, giving minireviews, some discussion comparing one piece to another.

I've never though that people in gear threads would violently masturbate to marketing materials.
>>
>>3797812
>However the 10-24 mm often is usefull in tight, enclosed spaces.
Yeah, hugging/kissing distances.
>>
>>3797815
17-19 mm was an extreme example indeed, but I don't have to worry about such things due to having a decent overlap.
However indoors you're often switching between focal lengths above and below 18 mm.
>Git gud gearfag
It's funny how I get accused of gearfaggotty yet also make the real gearfags seethe on a regular basis.
My most expensive lens, the Tamron SP 10-24mm, has costed me no more than 95€.
I bought my lenses because they do the job, not because they are 1% sharper than a competitors lens.

The reality is:
A camera is a tool, the lenses make it a more versatile tool.
Using the wrong lens for the job is like using a wrench as a hammer, you can make it work somehow sometimes, but it often sucks.
Go out and try shooting with a kit lens at night, you'll see why my normal zoom is f/2.8 and has a range that overlaps so much with my other lenses.
Or why I own a superzoom and a normal zoom that overlap almost entirely.
>>
>>3797827
>It's funny how I get accused of gearfaggotty yet also make the real gearfags seethe on a regular basis.
>My most expensive lens, the Tamron SP 10-24mm, has costed me no more than 95€.
Sorry, the 17-19mm thing made me assume you were a lens collector who can't take good pics.
I still think a superzoom is kinda dumb when you could have a tele zoom instead with better IQ.
>>
I'm not sure if this should go in /gear/ or /film/.
Have any of you guys (USA based) ever done or known anyone who did old school wet plate stuff?
I kind of want to try my hand at it one of these days. Not anytime soon, just at some point in the future.
tl;dr what's the legal situation with the required chemicals? Do you need some kind of special loicence or anything to get them or can you just buy some silver nitrate and stuff?
I wouldn't want to freak out the glowies or anything, I just think it would be really neat to do some antique style photography where I make my own negatives and the whole nine yards.
>>
Gonna hopefully buy a used fujifilm xt20 this weekend
Are there any decent lenses compatible with it that I can get for under $250?
Or should I just go for a different camera completely? I've taken a few photography classes but this will be my first camera and I'm a bit hesitant to spend $500 or more on it since I probably wont use it that much, but I do want a good camera for when I feel like taking pictures.
Only real reason I wanted fujifilm is for the boxy aesthetics but I'm open to other camera brand suggestions.
>>
I'm setting up a large print order on prodpi, but the proof preview they show makes it look like my photo is super blurry. Is that just because of the preview, or will it really look like that? The photo is really large and adjusted for print size so I'm just curious
>>
>>3797923
>probably wont use it that much
Don't think I'm trying to talk shit here or anything, but... huh?
A digital camera costs nothing to shoot with. I mean, besides the cost of electricity and that might as well be nothing.
How is it you guys have these super fancy expensive cameras and aren't just machine gunning shit all day every day? I don't get that.
Like, if you take a bunch of crap shots, who cares? It's not like you're burning money on them like you would be with a film camera.
I just don't get it.
>>
>>3797875
>I still think a superzoom is kinda dumb when you could have a tele zoom instead with better IQ.
The superzoom is kind of dual purpose, it's not only there to cover my telephoto range, but also to allow me to use only a single lens if I have to.
>>
>>3797923
Yeah, you should get a completely different camera, Fuji sucks ass. Also their "boxy aesthetics" just mean they are uncomfortable to hold. There's a reason vertical grips enlarge the horizontal grip too, because it's insufficient.
If you want a cheap system get Canon EF-S or Nikon DX. Nikon is pretty much pattern noise free, but Canon has a wider selection of cheap glass. Also Nikon has better ergonomics in my opinion. Pentax is super nice too and kinda boxy without sacrificing ergonomics. Some bodies and lenses come in different colors too.
If I were you I'd get something like a D5200 with a 18-55mm and a 70-300mm. Easy to use, comfortable to hold, cheap. I have experience with the D5100, I suppose the D5200 sensor is as good as the one in the D5100 was. The D5100 is awesome but it's 16MP instead of 24MP and doesn't support AF-P lenses. Later down the road if you feel this hobby is for you, you could get a Nikon Df for that retro feel.
A retro option you can get instead of the Fuji is the Panasonic LX100 or one of the Olympus OM-D or PEN models. I'd advise against it but they're better than Fuji at least and the system has plenty of viable cheap lenses.
>>
>>3797923
Viltrox lenses are cheap
>>
>>3797923
>takes photography class
>doesn't have a camera
>not sure if likes taking photos
Not sure that I quite get your sense of humour desu but this is a joke, right?
>>
>>3797959
but aren't they plagued with CA?
>>
>>3797957
>>3797923
I gotta be that guy.
Kodak makes cheap as fuck cameras that aren't bad for what they are.
>>
>>3797965
I don’t know I don’t/wouldn’t shoot Fuji.
https://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/1089-viltrox23f14?start=1
https://youtu.be/ZFVtEq_VZAg
Looks good from f/2

List of budget lenses
https://youtu.be/aeOBfMRVoEQ
>>
>>3797957
Thanks, this helps a lot.
I really like the LX100 but I'll probably end up going with the nikon in order to change lenses.
>>3797962
I wish.
I'm really lazy and unmotivated so I don't go out and take tons of pictures, but sometimes I find something awesome to photograph but I only have my shitty phone camera, which is why I wanted to upgrade. Getting a better camera might also motivate me to start taking pics more often.
>>3797966
noted.
>>
>>3797959
Prime example of "you get what you pay for".
>>3797962
He's dipping his toes in it, like a guy who buys a guitar after taking a couple classes.
There's a chance he's a square peg but there's also a chance he'll be good.
>>
>>3797968
>https://youtu.be/aeOBfMRVoEQ
>If you bought a Fuji camera to save money on camera lenses then I’ll tell you right now you made a serious error of judgement
Kek
>>
>>3797968
>>3797971
Based Frost telling it like it is. Fuji is a false economy.
>>
>>3797763
It’s an oversized 35mm that people are excited about.
>>
>>3797771
What a dumb response. The new lens is a 35mm which there are hundreds of in existence already.
Sharpness is a meme, bokeh is a meme. The limitations a are in your skill, bit your equipment.
>>
File: 1610618082485.png (1.68 MB, 2023x1884)
1.68 MB
1.68 MB PNG
is there any reason i shouldn't just get a super old one? what's the catch here, assuming it works with a CLA?
>>
Hello, I'm new to this. I wanted to know if the focal length of 25mm to 250mm (TZ101) is good for landscape pictures
>>
Is the K1-ii worth the upgrade over the K1?
I've hear the K1-ii bakes noise reduction into RAW files, so I'm thinking of just getting the K1 instead.
Any reason not to?
A bit hesitant to buy a a 4 year old sensor when sony and canikon and even fuji have newer stuff and much better af performance but pentax seems like a great value
>>
>>3797995
Dude. 4 year old sensors are fine. Get the OG one.
>>
Ok so maybe dumb question but can I use a camera with IBIS and sensor shift tech for multishot stitching to create basically focus stacked macro shots in camera?
>>
>>3798010
You can try to, but once you learn how the system works you realize no, it won't work. The closest to that you could realistically do do is a focus pull video clip.
>>
>>3797981
Read the last section of my post again...
>>
>>3797983
It's kind of hard to focus.
>>
>>3798022
its hard to focus this one, or rangefinders in general? i think the dof at f/3.5 should be pretty generous
>>
File: 100_0748s.jpg (495 KB, 1152x864)
495 KB
495 KB JPG
>>3798028
The right one is for framing, it's got a pretty good view, basically what you see through that one is the boundaries of what goes on film.
The left one is for focusing, and it's a tiny little circle of shit.
>>
>>3798028
I'm not trying to dissuade you or anything.
They're absolutely fabulous, and it's crazy how cheap they are, they're just totally manual clockwork all the way through.
You'd also have to have a light meter and know how to do all the calculations, and have a little notepad to write down what the settings were for whatever shot. Pencil and paper exif, that kind of thing.
Pure clockwork, there's no computer.
>>
Full frame or apsc for macro?
On one hand ff has better noise at higher iso when stopping down but shallower dof
>>
>>3798074
It literally doesnt matter.
>>
>>3797983
i think this is probably a replica of the zorki variety
>>
>>3798076
No bitch I must consoom I just need to know which
New apsc or older ff
>>
Anyone ever buy gear from Greentoe?
I bought a Fender Strat once and got a p great price but never photo equipment
Wondering if it’s worth trying or if I should just buy used
>>
>>3798082
If you want greater DoF, there is always that 14mm 1:1 macro lens that will have the background around a macro subject.
>>
>>3796789
>Plus, mirrorless cameras are inherrantly sharper than DSLRs (the D stands for Dinosaur).
Kek imagine drinking the MILC kool-aid this hard.
>>
>>3797205
It's not the hairdo. I could put a model sporting one in front of my camera and lights and she'd look like an 80s girl in a 2020s shoot.
>>
>>3797442
Kek you don't know what clipping is, obviously.
>>
>>3797983
Virtually all of them are soviet fakes.
I.e. a period correct soviet clone, with a modern treatment (engraving, paintjob, etc.) to con naziboos.
>>
I've got a D5300, took photo as a hobby, want to get a speedlight to experiment with and possibly expand the situations I can take decent photos in.
What should I look for? Any specific models you'd recommend? Camera is iTTL capable, that'd be nice. I'll be looking at my local second hand market most likely.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution800 dpi
Vertical Resolution800 dpi
Image Created2009:05:02 16:31:56
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1995
Image Height3547
>>
File: zink.png (144 KB, 1284x689)
144 KB
144 KB PNG
Anybody's got experience with zink printers? Just found out this exists, wanted your opinion on it. Worth it or meme?
>>
>>3798074
The benefits of FF outweigh the drawbacks in all scenarios aside from birding on a budget, imo. Unless you're using the camera exclusively for macro that will remain the case. APSC will give a relative depth of field increase for an equivalent field of view, yes, but for every other scenario the greater control over DoF, better high ISO performance, (generally) better dynamic range will of course be a net benefit.
>>
>>3798306
It's not realy something you want for your prints.
It's expensive per print and the quality isn't that good.
So unless you need a pocket sized printer on the go, it's not worth it.
>>
>>3798303
I've made good experiences with my 50€ Neewer NW 565EX.
It does support iTTL/ETTL, manual and multi flash and has decent power.
It doesn't do HSS though, but neither does my body.
>>
File: 004.jpg (562 KB, 822x616)
562 KB
562 KB JPG
>>3798349
Thanks fren, you contained my coonsoomerist impulse.
>>
>>3797933
Every bad photo you take and then go back and look at it and realize it's bad makes you sad. Sometimes it's better not to.
>>
>>3798074
The ISO benefit goes away because you need to stop down for the same DoF anyways.
32MP APS-C is probably bestest
>>
>>3798361
Huh.
I've never had that problem.
When I look at my bad shots it doesn't make me sad. I just think about how it could have been better, so I'll know what to try next time.
What's the point of beating yourself up over it? Isn't photography supposed to be fun?
>>
>>3798382
There isn't much of a point to it. But tell that to my feelsbox. Anyway, I think a lot of people feel the same way.
>>
>>3798430
Well, if you can't help it you can't help it. Fair enough.
Slightly different category of feels, but I have a motivation problem myself. Some days I don't really have the drive to go out and hunt down stuff to shoot.
So to get around that I instituted a rule for myself. I have to photograph one thing a day minimum, no matter what it is. Just something. I usually take several shots of a single subject because I'm never happy with the first one so one subject seems to be reasonable for the rule. If I leave the house the rule is I can't return until I've taken my photo(s).
it sounds cheesy and I end up with a lot of bad shots of bullshit, but at least it keeps me shooting even when I don't feel like it.
>>
>>3798382
kek i even look back and my good shots and think about how they could be better
>>
File: 1610688650212.png (473 KB, 505x622)
473 KB
473 KB PNG
should i sell my rz and buy a pentax 67
>>
>>3798615
Yes. Sell that tank and buy the artillery.
>>
Film bros I'm looking for an SLR but I have some questions about the best starter camera.
1. everyone keeps talking about the AE-1. However this is a pretty old camera. Shouldn't a more modern one (late 80s) have far better automatic exposure settings?
2. How reliable are said automatic exposure settings? I do not wish to fuck up my photos.
>>
i never got the point of auto exposure, literally what is the point of shooting in any way other than this:

> choose aperture you want
> choose the lowest shitter speed your cappable of shooting handheld
> if it doesnt meter good then you have to open your aperture a bit wider.
>>
>>3798625
Because exposure is a triangle so if you're like me and you mainly care about controlling the aperture while only desiring good enough shutter speeds there's little point in controlling the entire triangle.
>>
>>3798620
>t. wtfag
>>
>>3798625
>shitter speed
hehe
Some brands like Pentax have a way of controlling the aperture that accounts for focal length for handheld shots.
>>
>>3798625
>just choose the settings you want
Are you one of these zoomers who thinks you can just choose your gender and that makes you a woman?
>>
>>3798649
>oomerposting
Dilate faggot
>>
>>3798625
I'm lazy.
The computer on mine does just fine.
It's got a manual mode, I could set everything myself, but then what's my little silicon buddy for? I'd hate to leave him out. That'd be insulting.
>>
File: thing.jpg (147 KB, 1000x1146)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
What exactly is this thing for? Brand? I found it at a thrift store and bought it because, stuff. Pretty hefty hunk of metal. Handle loosens the head so you can tilt/pan it. But what was it marketed to clamp on to?
>>
>>3798697
Anything you can clamp it to, like a fence post or whatever
>>
>>3798702
The clamp barely opens to half an inch, so that doesn't make it very versatile. I was thinking of attaching it to the desk and use it to hang my headphones and maybe mount a light, but it's too small.
>>
What should I buy for a pocketable snappshitter?
Or should I just use my iphone?
>>
>>3798714
What's your budget?
>>
Sup /p/. I work at a camera gear rental company and I can test stuff for free. Even a whole weekend. Yesterday I had my hands on the R5 for the first time. I also tried a few photos with the A7SII a while back. So I have no mirrorless experience.
I use my 5DIV for events/nightclubs. The R5 is really fast, the 50 1.2 lens is crazy sharp. It really surprised me but one thing I didn't like was the EVF. As in, it feels like something is in between me and the subject, as if I'm not there. Anyone with the same feeling? I also love the mirror slap. Other than that, is there any reason to keep shooting with a DSLR? I know mirrorless cams can't see the infrared light on flashes so that would be a no-go for nightclubs. But yeah, the technology really got so good.
>>
>>3798719
>can’t see the infrared on flashes
What do you mean?
>>
>>3798720
It won't see the af light, so can't focus on it
>>
>>3798697
>>3798702
It does look like it was made to fit something in particular.
Who knows what that something was, but how hard could it be to make a tripod with a little plate to clamp that thing to?
>>
>>3798721
The af light has a significant presence in the infrared band?
How does the rig pick that up? I don't know anything about lenses. Does IR pass through their coating?
>>
I want to stop using my chinkphone for streetphotos and get a proper camera.
However it should be one that i can carry around easily. Is the ricoh gr III a good option?Any downsides?I often take closeups.
>>
>>3798724
Yeah look it up. My only solution would be a flash that has a modeling lamp or that uses white led. Maybe I can even remove the red plastic on the flash and replace it with normal white translucent plastic so that the light is a bit brighter than the red one. I know the R5 is pretty good at AF so maybe the red light itself is enough. I have to test that.
>>
>>3798727
>look it up
If I knew what to look up or how I wouldn't be asking.
>>
>>3798727
There is AF assist, it’s red lines iirc
>>
File: s-l640.jpg (54 KB, 640x640)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>3798727
Furthermore, I'm not really even sure what the fuck to do with that little red bastard.
If there's enough light for the thing to autofocus, I don't need that red thing.
If there's not enough light for the thing to autofocus, that dinky little thing isn't enough light anyhow.
I use a headlamp for adjusting the light for focus in dark conditions.
>>
>>3798352
Turns out my body doesn't support HSS either, today I learned something. Much appreciated, I'll see which speedlight from my local used market similar to that one I can get.
>>
>>3798655
This logic unironically is sort of what got me to start using aperture and shutter priority modes instead of manual mode all the time. Somebody pointed out that it's fucking stupid to spend a bunch of money on a camera with advanced computing technology specifically designed to help choose the optimal setting for exposure and then not use it.
>>
>>3798718
Not him but lets say 1000 euros
>>
Is mft any more relevant now that laowa dropped bunch of lenses for them?
>>
>>3798869
Literally not once has m4/3 been relevant
>>
>>3798869
I think Tamron's move into APS-C is beginning to make m43 less relevant.

Sigma is also pressuring Panasonic to move from m43 to APS-C.
I suspect Sigma is panicking a bit over Tamron's latest strategies.
>>
>>3798889
>Sigma is also pressuring Panasonic to move from m43 to APS-C.
Didn't think about that. Lumix going into TL would be the end of it.
>>
>>3798917
Yup.
In the past Sigma was satisfied with repurposing their APS-C lenses into m4/3 mount.

But the L-mount changed everything, now they really really, really want L-mount to become the 3rd most sold FF mount. Not only because they make lenses there, but also because they make camera bodies there.
They know they can't beat Sony and Canon, but they can see Nikon is in tatters. That's why they are pushing Panasonic to become more aggressive.
>>
I bought a lens from ebay from a seller that didn't disclose haze in the lens, only mentioned dust.

About to test it out but a little pissed. What's my recourse here? Do I ask for a partial refund?
>>
just bought some wireless triggers/transceivers and had no clue the Neewer stuff was so cheap. I got Yongnuo transceivers and a controller. is the Neewer stuff crap? build quality + lights and screen on the Yongnuo is quite nice but I'm not above returning.
>>
>>3799018
I have a mini light from neewer to light up my face for meetings. It works, I suppose, but build is not really good. Do all these flashes vendor lock you into some noname like that if you want wireless trigger?
>>
>>3798928
>In the past
Sigma used to make an "Art" 19mm, 30mm and 60mm for MFT which, as far as I understand, were unique/specific for the system, at least externally.
All 3 lenses were f/2.8.
The current MFT lenses from Sigma, all f/1.4, are "Contemporary" 16mm, 30mm and 56mm. These ones are available on other mounts as well.
>>
>>3799041
True, but all of them cover APS-C, both old and new series.
Also, shame sigma dropped 30/2.8 before L mount happened, it's a nice lens.
>>
>>3799041
>which, as far as I understand, were unique/specific for the system
It' not true anon. They were always APS-C optics retrofitted into m4/3.
>>
File: flare + contrast.jpg (1.79 MB, 1700x2160)
1.79 MB
1.79 MB JPG
Do prefer top or bottom?

And for what reasons.
>>
>>3799053
I like the brighter shadows.
>>3799044
I think Sigma realised there wasn't much point having a 30mm f/2.8 when they can make a 30mm with f/1.4, and you could just step it down.
>>3799052
If the optics are identical, then that's understandable, but I don't think the APS-C lenses had the glossy finish to the plastic.

Also, can someone explain the difference been Sigma "Art" and "Contemporary"? I can understand the "Sports" lenses are telephoto lenses which are good for sports and wildlife photography.
>>
>>3799056
Oh, yeah they made the "EX DN" first, then put same optics into glossy body (and added a lens hood attachment) called "DN A", and then just stopped making them.
>>
>>3799053
The bottom has better detail and is warmer but the sunstar and flare detract from the image as a whole
>>
>>3799056
>but I don't think the APS-C lenses had the glossy finish to the plastic.
They did.
The version 1 of the APS-C F2,8 lenses had that matte plastic sirface with ribbed rings.
The version 2 had the glossy and slippery finish which made them more difficult to handle.

>Also, can someone explain the difference been Sigma "Art" and "Contemporary"?
Just marketing and positioning and pricing.
They wanted to market the F2,8 as "art" series, then later on that released a better F1,4 series and reposition them as "contemporary" in relation to the full frame optics whihc are their new highend "art" lenses.
>>
>>3799058
The biggest offender is probably the big green blob next to the sun.
But I actually like the 2 small chromatic blobs in the lower left.
>>
>>3799057
Yeah... I have a Sigma 60mm "DN A", and it's a pretty neat prime. The nice thing about the glossy plastic is that it doesn't leave fingerprints on it, though not having a.... ribbed(?) focus ring means using it in gloves is pretty much impossible.
Only problem is the fact it's a total overlap with the Olympus 60mm Macro if it's used for general photography.
The 56mm DN C probably makes way more sense on a camera that isn't MFT.
>>
>>3799059
>They wanted to market the F2,8 as "art" series
It might have worked if they sold that 30mm lens lifted from merrill for a Leica TL. But they only had MFT and Sony, I blame the absolute lust after big holes and sharp corners for its demise. At least they are now selling full frame upscale of it, the 45mm, hope it goes well for them. (inb4 no one will buy it because it's one stop too slow)
>>
>>3799056
>Also, can someone explain the difference been Sigma "Art" and "Contemporary"?
Just look at their website ffs
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/contemporary?limit=all
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/art?

Zooms:
Contemporary are smaller and variable max aperture
Art are fixed max aperture and faster

Prime:
Contemporary are cheaper and for smaller mounts
Art are larger and for full size SLR/mirrorless mounts
>>
>>3797784
yes, the cheapies will colorshift and tint your photos
>>
>>3797923
>Are there any decent lenses compatible with it that I can get for under $250?
xf 27mm
>>
>>3797923
See if you can get the default kit lens for cheap on secondary market (ebay whatever), for Fuji it's the 15-45.
It's going to be slow, but small lens is always a useful lens, so feed off the fools that sell their kit.
>>
>>3798726
>Is the ricoh gr III a good option?
As long as you're OK with a fixed 28mm focal length.
>Any downsides?
No viewfinder, only a screen.
>>
>>3799053
Neither looks that good, since you are literally shooting right into the sun and your lens is flaring like crazy in both examples. The top has less unattractive flare, I suppose. I would not be proud of either one.
>>
What's the best pancake lens (with autofocus) available on any system right now?
>>
>>3799132
canon 40mm f/2.8
fuji 27mm f/2.8
sony 35mm f/2.8
panasonic 20mm f/1.7
>>
>>3799142
olympus 9mm f/8
olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6
panasonic 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6
sony 20mm f/2.8
nikon z 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3

pentax has some pancakes but who shoots pentax.
>>
>>3799132
Any of the Pentax DA or FA Limiteds because muh rendering.
>>
>>3799142
You forgot the EF-M 22mm f/2 and the EF-S 24mm f/2.8.
>>
>>3799147
ehhhh legacy mounts, who the fuck is buying brand new ef or f mount cameras. leave that ancient shit in the past for boomers to coom to.
>>
>>3799108
That's high altitude intense sun. Those lenses are actually doing well in that situation.
>>
>>3799150
>replies to a post mentioning Ef-s and Ef-m lenses with a comment about Ef and f mount lenses
Proving once again that *oomposters need to be gassed.
>>
>>3799151
Didn’t your mother ever tell you not to shoot directly into the sun?
>>
>>3799154
You also should not shoot flat brick walls. But people do that for benchmarking all the time.
>>
>>3799021
I don't believe you're "locked in" a lot of stuff made for Canon, for example should work all throughout
>>
Is pentax refreshing the K1 or releasing another FF camera anytime soon or should I just buy the K1?
Will the K3-iii be good? Brand new apsc sensor vs half decade old FF sensor?
>>
>>3799181
There is a K1 Mark II
>>
>>3799300
Yeah but still same sensor
I mean a newer iteration or maybe upgraded sensor
>>
>>3799142
>>3799145
>>3799146
>>3799147
Thanks guys, legitimately looking into all of these because I love pancakes
>>
So what are the actual benefits of mirrorless over dslr? Don't care about muh size&weight
What's the shooting experience like with evf vs ovf
Say someone shot film slr and is going digital
Should they cop a dslr or mirrorless?
>>
>>3799379
Mirrorless also offers more video features and typically better burst rate. I'd say if video, size, and weight mean nothing to you, then just buy a body based on lens selection and with controls you like.
>>
>>3799384
So basically pentax
>>
File: 1599215966214.jpg (213 KB, 1920x1080)
213 KB
213 KB JPG
>>3799379
Mirrorless has sharper lenses.
>>
>>3799387
>test charts

lmao
>>
>>3799388
Okay retard.
>>
Thinking of getting an eos r6. Which lens should I buy along with it?
>>
>>3799385
If you like their lens selection and controls then go ahead. Pentax still makes fine cameras in 2021.
>>
>>3799407
>Pentax still makes fine cameras in 2021
they havn't released a camera with a new sensor since like 2016
>>
>>3796831
You sure? Wouldn't the facial features look a lot more exaggerated with their bodies filling the frames like that?
>>
File: GR_Dust_Test.jpg (4.38 MB, 4928x3264)
4.38 MB
4.38 MB JPG
It happened - dust is on the sensor of my GR. I'm weighing my options between sending it for a cleaning, doing it myself, or upgrading to a newer compact. My room is always dusty as hell due to having a huge air vent, so I can't see myself DIYing it without making it worse.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelGR
Camera SoftwareGR Firmware Ver 02.03
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:01:15 15:25:41
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/16.0
Brightness9.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length18.30 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4928
Image Height3264
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 81rZOFsliJL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (285 KB, 1500x1312)
285 KB
285 KB JPG
Dumb question, trying to understand crops: I keep seeing how crop factor of 2 on a micro four thirds sensor effectively doubles the focal length of its lens. How honest is this effect?

Does this mean a 300mm lens on a MFT is the same as a 600mm on a full frame?

I'm wondering what this implies. Does this just mean the MFT photo is like if you cropped the edges off of a 600mm full frame photo by 2 and then sized it back up, or is there something with the pixel density that makes a MFT more effective at longer focal lengths?

I just want to photographs birds for gods sake
>>
>>3799448
Why not clean it in the bathroom while you have the hot water running?
>>
>>3799450
>Does this mean a 300mm lens on a MFT is the same as a 600mm on a full frame?
The framing is the same.
But the MTF needs lanses with 2x aperture to reach the same image quality as full frames.

>Does this just mean the MFT photo is like if you cropped the edges off of a 600mm full frame photo by 2 and then sized it back up
Sort of. But FF sensors typically don't have as high pixel density as the smaller sensors.

High pixel density is a costly thing you only resort to out of necessity if there is customer demand.
>>
>>3799481
>But the MTF needs lanses with 2x aperture to reach the same image quality as full frames.

ahh there it is. Yeah that makes sense.

>High pixel density is a costly thing you only resort to out of necessity if there is customer demand.

Good to know, thanks
>>
>>3799481
>But the MTF needs lanses with 2x aperture to reach the same image quality as full frames.
fuck your baiting. only depth of field, sigh. more is only better in some contexts.
>>
>>3799501
It's not bait. MTF needs 3 stop lower ISO to reach the image quality of FF.

Everybody knows this, and abandon MTF in droves.
>>
>>3799450
MFT usually has higher pixel density and hence it's like "zooming in" in the centre of the lens.
If you had a full frame with the same pixel density (i.e. 4x the MP count vs the MFT camera) and used on it a 300mm lens and just cropped, you'd get the same effect. This is very rare though since there aren't many 50+MP 35mm sensors.

In practice with MFT and a 300mm lens you'll get a (whatever MP your camera is) photo that has the same field of view as a 600mm lens on 35mm.

The fine print is, the higher the pixel density, the more the lens imperfections (aberrations, etc.) will show up at 100%.
>>
>>3799505
Ahh okay. Yeah I get it now. So it sounds like there's a few catches and that's what I was wondering about.

Thanks for the info
>>
>>3799450
In practice, it means that a 300mm on MFT will have the same field of view and angle of view as a 600mm lens would have on a 35mm camera.
However, reach is kind of... different, and that relates more to the image circle and actual sensor dimensions, meaning that a 300mm on MFT gets a reach of between 580-590mm. Reach is calculated in a confusing way.

For day to day use, all you should be concerned about is that the 2x crop factor affects the focal length and depth of field.
>>
>>3799516
>focal length and depth of field.
And image noise.
>>
>>3799542
If I set my ISO to 100,000 then yes, it would be noisy.
I stay at low ISOs as much as I can, and I usually have no problem with ISO 80 or 200 for the vast majority of my photography.
If I use a dark vintage lens, then I might step up to ISO 320 or ISO 400.
For photography at night, I either use Live Composite or use a flash. On the rare occasion I can't use either, I will drop down to ISO 800. I can count on one hand, instances where I've needed ISO 1600 or 3200. Usually, if I'm taking those kinds of shots, then I've long switched to using a film camera loaded with fast film, Kodak TMax or Ilford Delta.

A lot of brain damaged users on this board see image grain and think it's noise.
>>
>>3799555
>>I stay at low ISOs as much as I can, and I usually have no problem
That's irrelevant. Smartphone people will say they have no problems either.

The bigger image circle will still enjoy less noise than you at the same shutter speed and same ISO.
>>
>>3799556
I experience no discernible noise at ISO 200, ISO 250 or ISO 320.
I'd expect that this would be the case regardless of whether you're using Micro Four Thirds or Medium Format.
>>
>>3799566
>>I experience no discernible noise at ISO 200, ISO 250 or ISO 320.
So says the smartphone peopleas well, I guess that still makes micro 43 less and less relevant.

>I'd expect that this would be the case regardless
No. Medium format owners don't have any need to defend an inferiority complex.
The medium format owners will say their lower apertures are equivalent to FF apertures of slightly bigger sizes.
>>
>>3799568
>The medium format owners will say their lower apertures are equivalent to FF apertures of slightly bigger sizes.

No we don't. I shoot MF for high resolution. Aperture is constant.
>>
>>3799621
Okay retard. But your bigger image circle still result in less noise than a smartphone sensor so long as you use same aprrture, same ISO, same shutter speed.
>>
>>3797144
>>3797133
Close focus is really good thing to have
>>
>>3799450
It's actually a little bit off because it's 4:3 instead of 3:2, and crop factor is calculated by diameter of projected circle or diagonal or resulting image. But 4:3 image will have larger area than 3:2 image with same diameter. So if you compare it to say canon's aps-c, it almost looks the same, but the sides are cut off.
>>
File: s-l500.jpg (12 KB, 413x500)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>Minolta Spotmeter F
this is the viewfinder display with a little leak
will this bother me if i buy it ?
other items have display leaks on the main display
>>
>>3799621
It's true though. Big hole, more light, more signal, sensor can either split that light between more photosites, or get more SNR on each individual photosite. The f-number means very little by itself.
>>
>>3799090
hmm what about Fujifilm X100V?
Is a fixed focal lenght a good idea at all?
>>
>>3799984
The X100V seems expensive for what it is. A lot of people love it, though. I'd look for a used X100F to save some money, but that's me. Although honestly I'd probably snag an X-E2s or X-E3 at that point, but that's no longer a compact.

As far as whether a fixed lens is for you, it's something only you can answer. I know it's not for me, at least not at the prices that fixed lens cameras cost. But if you want something truly compact, then I totally see the appeal.

Oh, and if you want to go full retard, there's the Sony RX1R II.
>>
Is switching from APSC to fool frame because I want more FOV per lens, i.e. don't need to buy a 23mm to get 35mm FOV, worth it?
>>
>>3800022
There's substantial difference between V and F. New lens, new sensor.
>>
>>3800029
Within the same system? (EF/F/Z)
Then I guess it makes sense.
Changing system? (X to something else)
Then it might just be better to get shorter lens than replace everything.
>>
>>3800032
I'm aware of that. I still stand by what I said. The F didn't become a shit camera just because a newer generation came out.
>>
>>3800069
Canon 20D didn't become a shitty camera because 90D is available now. But it's still much worse.
>>
>>3800029
I think so Especially when you buy a camera which can adapt or mount vintage lenses. Those 80s 28mms are comfy AF.
>>
File: 1610964843392.jpg (436 KB, 1280x979)
436 KB
436 KB JPG
I got my Nikon DF last week and the previous owner shipped with it 8 batteries. The shutter count is 1500 which means he barely used one battery-full of shots.
Why are consumers like this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height979
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3800402
shelf queen

lucky
>>
>>3800404
Not any more. It's already been rained on and knocked into a fencepost since I've had it...
Oops.
>>
File: IMG_20200918_143005_734.jpg (4.16 MB, 5461x6827)
4.16 MB
4.16 MB JPG
>>3800402
the df looks so fucking good, goddamn. plus it can mount non ai lenses aswell. it's basically a digital F4 that can take g lenses. really lucky with that abysmal shutter count. i mount a pre ai 50mm 1.4 on my f4, it's a really nice lens, might want to look into it. pic related is the 50mm at f8ish on Ektar 100, the scan doesn't really do it justice, it's really sharp and pretty cheap. can the df meter the per ai-s automatically or do you need to do it while pressing the DOF preview like on the f4?
>>
>>3800418
No the metering will be stopped down with pre-AI. honestly, this is the first tim eI've hada Nikon and the lens selection is a bit bewildering. I actually love this 50mm F1.8 though. The focussing is really smooth.
Just won a 28mm series E on ebay too.
>>
File: 1584481198257.gif (721 KB, 598x574)
721 KB
721 KB GIF
>>3800402
Daaaaaamn she sexy.
>>
>>3800402
Fug, nice camera anon. How much did yopu pay for it?
>>
>>3800402
I really like the Df I wish they'd make a second gen. When I bought some full frame cameras recently the Dfs were just too expensive for what they were. I bought a nice D610 and an a7s for the price of a nice Df.
>>
I really like the design of the Miranda Sensorex and its lenses, but were they of any good quality? It seems like Miranda rebranded soligor glass--is that right?
I've got a 28mm, 50mm, 135mm, and 200mm (all Miranda, obviously) that I'm curious about--has anyone else used them and thought they were good?
>>
Any super cool or must have K mount lenses guys? shop near my work has a bunch second hand but I havent had a look yet, anything to keep an eye out for?
>>
>>3800543
£1100 which is mental but it's pristine and 1600 shoots.
>>
>>3800856
I loved the 21mm and the 40mm pancakes. Made my KP a truly compact camera.
Some people use the 40mm on the K1 as well.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerROB BATEMAN
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3800879
neat, ill keep an eye out for those, I currently have a 50mm (of course), a 28-80mm Macro, and a 35-70mm I dont use much
I think I saw a 70-210 F4 in the window as well as another long lens, so be nice to get some short and long stuff, as well as like a nice 105mm or something
>>
>>3800887
Which model do you have?
>>
File: DSCF0436.jpg (923 KB, 3000x1688)
923 KB
923 KB JPG
what are these black lines? shot with Fuji XE3, electronic shutter, 23mm f2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-E3
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-E3 Ver1.30
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:01:19 09:18:09
Exposure Time1/240 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness5.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length23.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6000
Image Height3376
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceAuto
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeUnknown
Focus ModeAuto
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeProgram AE
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusOK
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
>>3800924
Hair on the sensor. Have you given it a blow?
>>
>>3800927
oh you!
>>
File: DSCF0432.jpg (939 KB, 1492x2690)
939 KB
939 KB JPG
>>3800924
another shot. here they show vertically. it shows inconsistently between shots.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-E3
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-E3 Ver1.30
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:01:19 09:17:29
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating1000
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness1.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length23.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6000
Image Height3376
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceAuto
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeUnknown
Focus ModeAuto
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeProgram AE
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusOK
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
>>3800938
Oh those. I actually did see some dust on the sensor. I think those are lines caused by the flickering of your lighting. You can see that it doesn't occur in sunlit areas.
>>
>>3800938
But they are consistent with the sensor orientation...
Is your phone pregnant?
>>
>>3800924
>>3800938
100% caused by LED lighting. LED lights cycle on and off rapidly. It's too fast for the human eye to see but it gets picked up by cameras. The only solution is to use a slower shutter speed.
>>
>>3800956
The photo was taken at 1/240 of a second and the LED has had 4 phases in each photo. Does this mean the LED is flickering at ~1000Hz?
>>
>>3800966
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/flicker-free-lights-and-why-they-are-important-you
Some cameras can time their shots to avoid issues with flicker. My a7 III does this.
>>
>>3800970
Aren't they more evident with electronic shutters too?
>>
>>3800973
Not that I know of. I don't see why it would be.
>>
>>3800975
Same as any other rolling shutter problem. The sensor is read slower than when using a mechanical shutter.

>>3800938
Take the same pic with the mechanical shutter at the same shutter speed.
>>
Brothers I need your guy's help, I'm currently taking a photography class and I need a "Digital SLR camera. Apertures, shutter speeds, and focus should all be adjustable. Make sure that the camera has an internal light meter that is in working order." I'm also taking a video/film class so I need a camera that can do both. Anyone know a camera that's the best bang for my buck?
>>
>>3800984
A focal plane shutter at higher speeds would do the exact same thing. Instead of electronic scanning across the sensor, it would be a slit of exposed area between the shutter curtains. The effect would be the same.
>>
>>3801115
You need to give a budget. How could we possibly know how much money you have to spend? I mean come on seriously. We're not mind readers. What is it with people like you who post without a budget? Do you seriously expect a perfect answer with literally no information as to what you can afford? Be real.
>>
>>3801142
600 bucks
>>
>>3801144
DPReview is a good source and has a buying guide for cameras under $500. Check this out. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-500
>>
>>3801146
Thanks brother
>>
>>3800956
>>3800966
>>3800970
>>3800973
>>3800984
Based. Thanks /p/als
>>
>>3800949
If you don’t have a battery case for your phone I feel bad for you son. I got LED lighting problems but my phone will always run. Hit me.
>>
>>3800924
>electronic shutter
It's this.
Electronic shutter is too slow. Also, it's going to top out at about 20ms, if you set electronic shutter and speed that is higher like your 1/240, it will just slowly scan a narrow stripe across the sensor. Every pixel is exposed 1/240, but entire shot will be much slower.
>>
>>3801199
Any modern mechanical shutter does the same thing at higher speeds. Please learn about cameras.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.